Nothing you said here makes any sense, but I suppose it sounds very ‘deep’ to you or something?
Theories are not maps, wtf are you smoking over there?
If you really want some hardcore weird shit, looking Jung. Nobody touches his shit anymore because it was even more whack than Freud. But his work does make for an excellent story telling model for fiction. It has jack shit to do with real psychology though.
The Map and Territory is reference to a now fairly old metaphor for the distinction between reality and our conceptions of it. Theories/concepts/words/ideologies/etc. are metaphorical maps of the systems of the world, simplifying a wildly complex and seemingly chaotic world into, hopefully, broadly useful heuristics for predicting causal relationahips. Freud, Jung, Skinner, Lacan, Piaget, and everyone who has come after them have attempted to ‘map’ the causes and effects of the phenomena of the mind, creating what they hoped would be universalizable explanations for why people think and do what they think and do. This is what I was referring to. Does that help it make sense?
Theories can be viewed metaphorically as maps. If I define ground with hocus pocus nonsensensical alchemy I can lay the foundations for modern chemistry, same can be said for medicine. I could argue that Plato created Christianity monotheistic god on ‘The Republic’.
Your critic of Freud is valid but that doesn’t mean he didn’t lay a fundamental metaphorical map
Almost nothing is universalizable or generalizable. Theories are maps. Assuming the map describes all territories is an individual error.
Nothing you said here makes any sense, but I suppose it sounds very ‘deep’ to you or something?
Theories are not maps, wtf are you smoking over there?
If you really want some hardcore weird shit, looking Jung. Nobody touches his shit anymore because it was even more whack than Freud. But his work does make for an excellent story telling model for fiction. It has jack shit to do with real psychology though.
The Map and Territory is reference to a now fairly old metaphor for the distinction between reality and our conceptions of it. Theories/concepts/words/ideologies/etc. are metaphorical maps of the systems of the world, simplifying a wildly complex and seemingly chaotic world into, hopefully, broadly useful heuristics for predicting causal relationahips. Freud, Jung, Skinner, Lacan, Piaget, and everyone who has come after them have attempted to ‘map’ the causes and effects of the phenomena of the mind, creating what they hoped would be universalizable explanations for why people think and do what they think and do. This is what I was referring to. Does that help it make sense?
Theories can be viewed metaphorically as maps. If I define ground with hocus pocus nonsensensical alchemy I can lay the foundations for modern chemistry, same can be said for medicine. I could argue that Plato created Christianity monotheistic god on ‘The Republic’.
Your critic of Freud is valid but that doesn’t mean he didn’t lay a fundamental metaphorical map
No, I’m saying you’re just wrong.
All of those things are straight up wrong.
I can claim that I can grow wings and fly, but I’d be wrong. And yes, stupid people will believe stupid things like Freud’s theories.